denying common-law cause of action for loss of parental consortium on grounds that such loss was recoverable by parent under Iowa statute
How later courts described this case
- denying common-law cause of action for loss of parental consortium on grounds that such loss was recoverable by parent under Iowa statute
- holding that adult and married children may raise loss of parental consortium claims when a parent is injured
- recognizing that recovery can be had on a loss of consortium claim upon a finding of negligence
- holding the administrator of a decedent’s estate is the proper party plaintiff for asserting a surviving spouse’s loss of consortium claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOLLE, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion. The trial court correctly dismissed the two separate wrongful death claims for loss of consortium, that for loss of spousal consortium asserted by the decedent’s wife Laura and that for loss of parental consortium asserted by the decedent’s son Scott. I disagree with the grounds on which the majority reaches its decision, agreeing rather with the trial court that the separate claims for loss of consortium are not allowed under the Iowa statutes which create and thereby delimit causes of action for wrongful death in Iowa.
At common law, wrongful death actions were not recognized; in Iowa and most other common law jurisdictions, recovery for wrongful death is entirely statutory. Wilson v. Iowa Power & Light Co., 280 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa 1979); Major v. Burlington C.R. & N. Ry., 115 Iowa 309 , 88 N.W. 815 (1902); Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 693, 925 and comment a (1976).
In Egan v. Naylor, 208 N.W.2d 915 (Iowa 1973), this court upheld the dismissal of a child’s action for wrongful death of a parent, a claim very similar to that here asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Scott. The Egan case reviewed Iowa’s wrongful death statutes, summarized Iowa authorities, and confirmed that Iowa recognizes no common law action for wrongful death. Responding to the argument that our wrongful death statutes do not fashion the same rights and remedies for different categories of plaintiff, this Court said:
It is anomalous that our statutes confer the right to recover for loss of services and support of a deceased spouse and parent on the decedent’s estate rather than on those who incurred the loss. Since the question is legislative we are unable to fashion a judicial remedy.
208 N.W.2d at 918 .
Just as the majority opinion would allow the administrator to recover loss of parental consortium as a part of wrongful death damages, a recovery not allowed in Egan , so would the majority now also allow the administrator to recover loss of spousal consortium, a wrongful death claim consistently rejected. Wilson v. Iowa Power & Light Co., 280 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa 1979); Acuff v. Schmit, 248 Iowa 272 , 78 N.W.2d 480 (1956).
Our wrongful death statutes have not been changed since the cited decisions deny *154 ing loss of consortium in wrongful death cases. We ought not now create new measures of damage for wrongful death by judicial decision when the legislature has not changed the applicable statutes.
I would affirm both the trial court’s ruling and the reasons given for its ruling.
UHLENHOPP and McGIVERIN, JJ„ join this dissent.